Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — 2 May 2022 (50th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. L No. 46)

2022-05-02

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

PDF Version

May 2, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 46

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome William Saunders. Mr. Saunders

will be recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon. He is joined by

members of his family and the Royal Canadian Legion, St. John's, Branch 1.

Welcome,

Mr. Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

In the public gallery today,

I would like to welcome Heather Elliott, advocate for the survivors of sexual

assault and gender-based violence, as well as representatives from the

Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today on a point of privilege. O'Brien and Bosc, in the

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , states: “… Member must

satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of

the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.”

As per

our discussion on Friday, April 12, 2022, I sought your guidance on the point of

privilege. I've given you notice and a written copy of my point of privilege.

On April

12, 2022, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards filed a report, which is

false and misleading. It gives the impression that I'm not fulfilling my

obligations as a Member, as he highlighted on page 3 of the report, which he

knew the media would report.

Section 38(2) of the act states: “The commissioner

may make a recommendation to a member that in order to fulfill the member's

obligation under this Part, the member sell a private interest at arm's length,

commissioner may specify, with or without those other arrangements to be made

that will ensure that the member's obligations under this Part are fulfilled.”

The

legal definition of a private interest is that a private interest includes but

is not limited to a financial interest, which pertains to a business whereby a

person or a business would gain a benefit, privilege, exemption or advantage

from the action of a state, agency or employee that is not available to the

general public.

It has

been reported in the media that this report is related to the private interest I

have in a company. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards put this innuendo

in the report to be reported as such. I wanted to make it quite clear I do not

own a company; my spouse does not own a company. We are not on any boards or

agencies that receive any remuneration or are in any conflict. In fact, we're

not even on any volunteer boards.

challenge the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to produce any evidence

that I or my spouse owns a business or we are on any boards or agencies that we

are involved with, instead of putting out innuendo, hoping the media will follow

up.

Once the

Speaker tabled the report, then the desired effect of the Commissioner was

accomplished by the report that I be removed from the House of Assembly without

presenting any facts.

challenge any Member to show this House of Assembly where in this report there

is anything concrete that I am in a conflict of interest. I must remind all the

Members of this House of Assembly that the findings of the

Joyce Report 2018 were proven by a Supreme Court decision.

The

Commissioner for Legislative Standards made the same innuendo in the election

report 2021 tabled in this House. He stated that a candidate tried to intercept

ballots at Canada Post. A CBC reporter followed up with the access to

information, and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards confirmed to the CBC

reporter that that is the date and time.

There

was no foundation to this statement; it was false, misleading and once again

showed the contempt the Commissioner for Legislative Standards has for me for

filing a civil suit against him.

I have

completed my Member's disclosure statements for 27 years. There has never been

an issue. Even with the current Commissioner in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, but

since I filed a civil suit in 2020, there has been ongoing requests for

information that many other Members were not requested to provide and I never

had to provide until the last two years.

Speaker,

I will never give the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Bruce Chaulk,

enough information that he will continue to seek more and more, which I cannot

provide as this is the goal to file another report.

Speaker,

I will inform the House of the false and misleading statements the report

presented to the House of Assembly. The Commissioner, Bruce Chaulk, stated,

number one: “Since June 2021, I have requested that MHA Joyce provide me with

financial documentation ….”

The

facts are I received an email from the Commissioner Bruce Chaulk on June 11,

2021, stating that my disclosure statements are due on June 11, 2021. I wrote

the Commission to state I never received the documents. Mr. Chaulk replied in an

email: They were hand delivered to your office on April 12. I informed Mr.

Chaulk that I did not have an office. I asked him who he dropped it off to and

who he gave them to. “Here is a copy of the Form in PDF, word and the

instructions for the completion of the booklet.”

The

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure can confirm that I did not take

ownership of an office until April 19, 2021.

To state

that he was requesting information from me since June 12, 2021, when he

intentionally did not provide me with this documentation until June 11, 2021, is

misleading and false. His intent, as he stated in the correspondence, was that I

was late filing on June 12, in July and a part of August when he failed his duty

to provide me with the documentation.

Number

two, Mr. Chaulk stated in his report: “… I have offered to meet with the member

virtually, in person, and in the presence of his legal counsel.” I tried on many

occasions to meet with Mr. Chaulk and he stated: “I will try to accommodate

you.”

The

Commissioner finally agreed to meet with me on October 26, 2021. I walked in his

office and the Commissioner had a third person with him. I stated I was not

aware he was bringing a third person. He stated: “He is here to assist me.” I

informed the Commissioner that I would not be disclosing my personal and

financial information in a room to a person I do not know and I immediately left

the room.

The

Commissioner wrote me stating that this was permitted under

Section 34(16) and

34(17) of the House of Assembly Act :

the commissioner may determine those employees and

officers that are necessary for the performance of the duties of the

commissioner.”

Section 34(17) states: “… every person employed by the

commissioner shall swear an oath ….”

I asked: Who is this employee? What is his

name? Where does he work with in government? The Commissioner informed me he was

his legal counsel and he was trying to conceal him as a government employee.

This was unethical, misleading and an abuse

of power trying to force me to disclose personal, private and financial

information to an outside person. This is when he agreed to meet with my lawyer

present, after this incident.

The

Commissioner stated in the email: “You have commenced legal proceedings against

me in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.” I agree. That is why I

have requested the Commissioner for Legislative Standards on 10 occasions that

he excuse himself from my file but he flatly refused.

His

involvement with my file is unethical and a blatant conflict of interest. The

Commissioner informed me that he had to sign off on this anyway. That was his

excuse.

informed him of the Mitchelmore Report

completed by the Citizens' Representative, but the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards stated that he did not participate in the investigation but he has

confidence in the Citizens' Rep and imposed a Code of Conduct violation.

This

precedent has been set by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards refusing to

excuse himself and I feel his end goal was to ensure another Code of Conduct

report.

Number

three, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards started in this report:

“Despite repeated requests and assurances that the information provided to my

office is privileged and is never disclosed ….”

November 12, 2021, even after the Commissioner tried to force me to divulge my

personal information and financial information to his private lawyer, I sent my

disclosure statement to the Commissioner to try to get this matter resolved. I

stated that I'm doing so under duress due to incidents of trying to work with

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. In the letter, I stated: “I am

trying to fulfill my obligations as a Member of the House of Assembly.” I went

on to state: “If you have any questions or seek additional information, please

contact me in writing and I will, to the best of my ability, provide the

information.”

November 15, 2021, after receiving an email from me on November 12, 2021, that

while my disclosure was forwarded to him, he may have it in his possession; the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards filed a Code of Conduct violation.

November 16, 2021, the Citizens' Rep, on notification from the Clerk of the

House of Assembly where there was disclosure made to her regarding an email to

me by the Commissioner that was copied to a third party. The Citizens' Rep

stated: “In my view, this is a potential authorized disclosure of personal

information, i.e. a privacy breach.

“I have

notified the Commissioner for Legislative Standards of this Privacy Breach and

advised him to notify the Privacy Commissioner and enact the relevant sections

of the Access to Information and Privacy manual to contain the breach.”

notified the Privacy Commissioner and there is an active investigation

concerning my privacy breach. The Commissioner's assurance that the received

information is private is under review. His assurances have no credibility.

Two

points to this serious matter: I asked for this information to be returned from

my disclosure statement, which the Commissioner refused to do. Secondly, I was

informed on February 2, 2022, approximately 105 days later, that he cancelled

the investigation on November 17, 2021.

This is

an absolute abuse of authority by not notifying a Member that a Code of Conduct

violation investigation has ceased and not ensuring a certificate of conduct.

This is a type of abuse of authority that the House of Assembly has fostered by

allowing the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to file false reports, make

false statements to the House of Assembly and the Management Commission and not

be answerable to the House of Assembly.

Speaker,

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards has made a very serious and telling

statement in his report, and I quote: “… some members have missed the statutory

deadline for providing information in the past ….” Why weren't these Members

cited for a Code of Conduct? I was singled out by the Commissioner when, by his

own submission, many others missed the statutory deadline.

When I

was informed on February 2, 2022, that he ceased the investigation on the Code

of Conduct violation, I asked for a certificate of conduct, which is required by

law. His response in February was that he could not provide me a certificate of

good conduct because I did not file my disclosure statement within the 60 days

required. This is in context that he did not provide me with the disclosure

statement until the deadline was over and refused to meet with me until October.

The

question for the House of Assembly is: Are other Members of the House of

Assembly, who missed the statutory deadline of 60 days, in good standing? Why is

one MHA singled out when the Commissioner for Legislative Standards stated there

are other Members who did not file within the 60 days?

This is

evidence of the arbitrary decision of the Commissioner to apply the law as

stated in the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , which he does not have the

authority. Apply the law to all Members of the House of Assembly equally and not

just to the MHA who has filed a civil suit against him. There is no more blatant

disregard for the rule of fairness than applying the legislation to one Member

rather than all Members.

In his

report, the Commissioner stated that I requested an extension to provide a

response. That is correct. During the period, I consulted with legal counsel.

After explaining the circumstances of the allegations and advice from my legal

counsel, I asked the Commissioner permission to have a representative from legal

counsel to review the disclosure statements of all 39 Members of the House of

Assembly.

This

information is public knowledge, but the Commissioner refused access to these

public documents. This would provide me with the information on when disclosure

statements were finalized and if any Member did not disclose material changes in

their reports within the 60 days of the changes.

February 9, 2022, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards informed me that

under

section 42(2) of the House of

Assembly Act , he has initiated an inquiry for failure to comply with the

House of Assembly Act and the Code of

Conduct. He stated: There were specific violations: one, you failed to file your

disclosure statement on time as required by

section 36(11); two, you failed to

provide a complete disclosure and refused to provide supporting documentation as

required by sections 36(1), 36(2) and 36(3); three, you failed to report a

material change in your holding by 36(4), report any change within 60 days.

informed me that I violated Principles 1, 6, 7 and 11. Upon the advice of my

legal counsel and where the Commissioner for Legislative Standards refused my

representatives to review public documents, items one and three were not

included in the final report. So the report that's in front of this House is not

the report that I was asked to respond to. It changed and I did not see this

report. The reason was evidence from the public documents would have shown that

there were Members who filed past the 60-day deadline, but the Commissioner did

not file a Code of Conduct.

Secondly, there's at least one Member who had a material change and they did not

notify the Commissioner and the Commissioner did not file a Code of Conduct.

This is a blatant example of how the Commissioner is using the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act

at his discretion without any authority to do so.

Complaint 1: If the Commissioner for Legislative Standards had to execute his

duty and provide necessary documentation on April 12, 2021, it would have been

completed on time and all the details were explained in early documentation.

Complaint 3: Material changes not reported within 60 days. This action was

ceased, as evidence would have shown, by the public documents, that there was at

least one Member who had a material change and the change was not reported

within the 60 days.

I would

also like to provide to the House of Assembly that on August 4, 2021, within 60

days of receiving my disclosure statements in an email to the Commissioner I

stated: “I will file when I get the necessary information from the banks as

funds were transferred.”

February 9, the Commissioner initiated an inquiry and provided me with three

questions for response. The document the Commissioner provided me on April 9 is

a stark contrast to the issues that were filed on April 12, 2022. How can the

Commissioner expect a Member to justify a report tabled in the House of Assembly

as non-compliance when I never seen this report and the allegations changed from

February 9 inquiry?

December 14, 2021, the Commissioner wrote me with four follow-up questions. I

was in Africa at the time and responded on December 20, 2021. I replied and

clarified and answered the four questions. The Commissioner wanted to have the

public disclosure statement completed within the next week.

Here is

my response to the Commissioner: I will not be returning until December 28,

2021, but if I have the letter of confirmation before I leave Africa, I will try

and get it scanned and sent back to you. As you are aware, I will have to

isolate for five days. If necessary, I can write and confirm and forward the

signed letter after isolation. I ask the House: Is this a person who is not

trying to fulfill his duties as a Member of the House of Assembly?

The

report tabled in the House of Assembly is a stark contrast to the letter the

Commissioner provided to me.

Complaint 2, sent to me on February 9, 2022, that I was refusing to provide

supporting documentation was concerning how Scotia Bank is investing funds in a

Tax-Free Savings Account. Under the federal government Tax-Free Saving Account,

you can invest through a financial institution or self-direct. For 10 years, my

Tax-Free Savings Account was noted to be not in a conflict as they are with an

institution and I am not in control or have knowledge of any of the investments.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Conflict of Interest Act

section 2(

c) and 2(

f) state –

section 2(c)(

v) of “'excluded private interest' means … a registered retirement

savings plan, retirement or pension plan or employee benefit plan, that is not

self-administered.”

Section 2(f): “'private interest' means (

i) an interest in a

partnership, including an interest in a law partnership, (ii) an asset, loan,

liability or financial interest, (iii) a source of income, and (iv) a position

of director or officer in a corporation or association.”

There

are Members in this House who confirmed to me that they were not requested to

provide this documentation. I am not sure how or where the bank invests to

provide to the Commissioner this information, as for 10 years they were declared

not in a conflict.

When the

Commissioner highlighted in his report stating, “Section 38(2) of the Act allows

me to make a recommendation to a member that in order to fulfil the member's

obligations, the member shall sell a private interest at arm's length, or place

obligations are satisfied,” this is usually a concern for Cabinet ministers.

disclosure statements are within the guidelines of the conflict of interest. The

reference that the Commissioner made in the report is concerning a business

interest and ownership, which has not been declared in over 10 years and is not

included in the February 9, 2022, letter he sent to me, which I had to respond.

They have been excluded private interest for nine years, four of which the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards ruled they were not.

I have

to provide a complete disclosure. I have no business. I have no private

interest. For the Commissioner to infer this is putting my reputation in

question. I want to remind the House of Assembly that the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards, who is presenting this report, is the defendant in a

civil suit I filed, which is currently in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and

Labrador. There is a privacy breach investigation ongoing against him for the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards providing information to a third party.

It is

unethical and a blatant conflict of interest for the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards to continue to investigate my file when I have asked him

on at least 10 occasions that he excuse himself. However, the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards refuses to remove himself.

I am

asking that the Speaker find this a prima

facie case. I am asking that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards

provide documentation to this House that I or my spouse have a business holding,

are a part of a corporation which the Member and the Member's family together

hold 10 per cent or more of the shares.

In the

absence of this documentation, I'm asking the House of Assembly to order the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards to publicly apologize in a letter to

myself and to the media in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Furthermore, I'm asking that the House of Assembly assign my disclosure file to

another Officer of the House of Assembly, the Auditor General or a senior staff

member from Mr. Chaulk's office, to have this process completed in a short

period of time.

The

Government House Leader said in an earlier conversation that families should not

be brought into the political arena, and I agreed. I trust the Government House

Leader will honour those words as it is reported that myself and my spouse are

embroiled in a conflict of interest that doesn't exist.

Maingot, 2016, he stated that if a Member's reputation is questioned, it is

definitely a prima facie case. There

is no doubt that my reputation is in question by this false report and innuendo

by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

I refer

to O'Brien and Bosc, page 141, where matters involving privilege before the

House of Commons are treated with the utmost seriousness. As you outlined, there

is a formal process to be followed. I followed that process and notified the

Speaker of my intentions to raise this point of privilege, and this is the

earliest possible opportunity.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted

to have a few words about this. I want to say upfront as well to the House,

while myself and my colleague here, we do chat on a regular basis and so on, I

can honestly say this is the first time I've seen his report, we've had no

discussion of it and there certainly was no intent, per se, for me to simply

follow him.

But as

one Member of this House of Assembly, I cannot – we've seen theses things come

before the House now a number of times involving this Member. As I have said in

the past, and I will repeat to every Member in this House, this could be you or

me tomorrow. That's what everybody has to remember. It's easy to sit back and

let all this slide, and say, oh, well, that's his problem. But it could be

anybody's problem in this House, don't forget that. We should never forget that.

We have

a Commissioner for Legislative Standards who was put in place – he's also the

Chief Electoral Officer. I could go on a big rant about that again, but I won't

at the moment. He's the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards. He's the Commission that's supposed to be responsible for

ethics. How ironic is that? And this officer reports to this House. He works for

us. We don't work for him, Mr. Speaker, and it seems like the tail is wagging

the dog, it really does.

When I

hear all these inaccuracies that are being raised by this Member on numerous

occasions, and he outlined them all here, and we just put our hands up in the

air and say, oh, well, that's it. This man's reputation is being called into

question. Clearly, in order for this man or anybody in this House of Assembly to

do their job, you need to have that confidence; you need to have your reputation

in tack. To have this shadow, this dark cloud hanging over this Member's head –

and it could be anybody's head tomorrow – is simply wrong.

So I

would absolutely agree with the fact that this particular matter should go to

somebody else, because clearly there's a conflict – clearly. Let someone else

have a look at the records here, whether it's the Auditor General or whoever it

is, to clear this matter up.

On top

of that, I really believe, as I've said in the past, that this House of Assembly

needs to get some answers from this particular Commissioner for Legislative

Standards on a number of issues. We need to clear the air. Maybe it's through

the Management Commission. I would imagine, it would be the Management

Commission, but we cannot continue to have these things coming before the House,

when there clearly seems to be questions about the accuracy of it.

I can

remember here in this House of Assembly when we were talking about this whole

thing: What constitutes a government employee? The Commissioner stood in this

House of Assembly and told us one thing and then went down to the courthouse and

told the courts something totally different – the opposite. How could that be

right? How can we stand for that? How can we have any confidence in an Officer

of the House of Assembly to ensure that everything is on the up and up,

everything is being done properly and, most importantly, that every Member in

this House of Assembly is being treated fair and square?

I have

no confidence. I lost confidence after the election: what a disaster that was.

But on top of that, we're seeing these issues with this particular Member.

Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, it's not about me per se standing up

for this Member, because he's quite capable of standing up for himself. But I

look at the fact that it could be any one of us tomorrow. If it's not us, the

next election comes and there are new Members here, it could be them.

We've

got to have a standard in place. We have to set the bar high for that position.

We have to make sure that the position is being professional, that the act is

not being abused in any way and that this person understands quite clearly that

they report to us. We don't report to them.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, I do agree once again with the recommendation that this

particular report and the information that's being requested should go to the

Auditor General or some other Officer of the House to review. I don't think

there should be any further dealings, quite frankly.

We have

a court case – how the Commissioner for Legislative Standards could be dealing

with this Member's documentation, or having any dealings with him, really,

considering the fact that he's taking him to court. That in itself should have

been dealt with. The minute that happened, somebody should have said from here

on in, until this matter is cleared up, this particular Member will deal with

somebody else from that office, not this particular individual, because that is

clearly a conflict of interest.

I agree

with that part. I also, once again, say to Members of the House, through the

Management Commission, let's have a look at it. Let's have a look at the report.

Let's have a look at these allegations. The Member is not trying to hide

anything; quite clearly, he's putting it all there. He's documenting it all.

It's all in Hansard . It's not like the

Member is hiding stuff or trying to hide behind stuff. He's quite open I'm sure

to having everything that he said scrutinized.

what's wrong with scrutinizing it and seeing if he was treated fair and square?

If he wasn't, it needs to be corrected. If he was treated fair and square and

he's making stuff up, then he needs to be dealt with. I'm confident that's not

the case, but I would say to him, I would look him right in the eye and say: If

you are misleading this House, you need to be sanctioned. I'm sure he's not

doing that.

But

let's get to the bottom of this. This is crazy. We're in this House of Assembly

over and over and over again, every time the House is open there's another

racket. The people don't want us in here in this House of Assembly having a

racket over this foolishness, they really don't. It should never be happening.

So, Mr.

Speaker, once again I say to you, it's up to you obviously to make the ruling

but I think what's being asked for here is very reasonable. I, for one, will

support it.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, I

just received the report a little earlier today. I haven't had a chance to go

through it thoroughly so I will take it under advisement and report back to the

House very shortly.

We'll

move on with regular business today.

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we have Members for the Districts of St. Georges - Humber, Mount Pearl

North, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Stephenville - Port au Port and St. John's

Centre.

The hon.

the Member for St. Georges - Humber.

S. REID:

Speaker, today I would like

to pay tribute to Al Gillespie, who sadly passed away on April 24 at the age of

58. Until the time of his passing, Al was the mayor of the Town of Massey Drive,

a position he held for just over four years. In this role, he contributed

greatly to the development and community life in the town where he lived for 17

years. He was a strong advocate for his town, and even as he battled cancer, he

was making representation to myself and to others in government.

Al had a

successful career as a heavy-equipment salesperson and for the past 17 years, he

worked with United Rentals where he developed strong relationships with

co-workers and customers throughout the province.

Al was a

family man; nothing made him happier than to spend time with his wife and

children. He was an avid camper, a proud Montreal Canadiens fan and he loved to

make people laugh. Because of his work in the community, the way he lived his

life and his cheerful nature, he will be remembered and missed by many.

conclusion, I ask all Members of the House to join me in offering condolences to

the family and many friends of Allan James Gillespie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

L. STOYLES:

Speaker, three years ago

Scott Hillyer, owner of Coffee Matters, had an idea: to provide a hot meal to

those in need. In October of 2019, with all the churches of Mount Pearl and the

city, they started the Community Supper.

It began

with the churches being the hosts of these events. Each week a different church

would provide the volunteers to help with serving the meals at Park Place, the

venue provided by the City of Mount Pearl.

During

the pandemic shutdown, with indoor space no longer available, they revamped

their plan and began 100 per cent takeout meals from the Salvation Army food

truck. Currently, they are still doing takeout meals, but now out of the kitchen

of the Church of the Good Shepherd. The churches still provide volunteers to

assist and Scott Hillyer and his business oversee the cooking of all these

meals.

Since moving to the church, they have gone from serving

30 individuals to over 200 people a hot meal twice a month.

Other

community groups have joined in the cause to help with funding for one night of

meals, with Coffee Matters providing the other. Scott Hillyer

is a true example of how community matters.

I ask my

colleagues here in the House Assembly to recognize Scott Hillyer and his

company, Coffee Matters, for all that they do. Because community matters.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you, Speaker.

Grand

Falls-Windsor Elks Lodge was first instituted in October of 1922, with 59

chartered members, after an impostor tried to represent the Elks Lodge two years

prior. Upon institution, the lodge began their community work by building a

swimming pool and playgrounds for children. They would visit patients at the

hospital in Botwood where everyone would receive a parcel of fruit and candy.

When

Lodge 59 began, they didn't own their own building so they had their meetings at

the K of C Hall until 1953. On August 31, 1953, they held their first meeting in

their own building on Beaumont Avenue, with P. F. McDonald as exalted ruler.

Through

the years, the lodge continued to visit and help build the hospital in Grand

Falls-Windsor and, with the help of Cabot Lodge #65, purchased the sound booth

at the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre, which is still in use

today.

The lodge

continues to help special needs children by purchasing bicycles, computers,

hearing aids, wheelchairs and assisting the travel expenses when children have

to travel for medical treatments.

Please

join me as we honour the Grand Falls Elks Lodge and their 100 years of helping

our community and citizens. Happy Birthday, Phil.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's with great pleasure to announce that Sarah Janes, from Port au Port East, a

student at Stephenville High, is the winner of the prestigious Loran

scholarship. Sarah is one of two recipients from the province.

1988, the Loran Scholars Foundation was the first national organization in

Canada to grant undergraduate awards based on academic achievement,

extracurricular activity and leadership potential. Sarah was one of 5,174

students from over 1,400 schools throughout Canada who applied in 2022. Sarah

was one of 35 students chosen to receive the award valued at $100,000. Besides

the monetary award, the scholarship includes a four-year leadership enrichment

program and opportunities to build community with a diverse network of

value-driven peers, mentors, alumni and supporters.

Sarah is

a long-time member of Girl Guides Canada. She has completed silver and bronze

levels of the Duke of Edinburgh program and is a black belt in tae kwon do. She

plays flute in her concert band and volunteers at the local thrift store. She is

a tutor and also works at her local co-op store.

Sarah

credits her parents for helping her achieve this award by involving her in a

variety of activities in the area.

I invite

all hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating Sarah on this

wonderful achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Fred

Roger's quote, “Life is for service,” describes Bill Saunders.

In 1940,

at age 19, Bill enlisted in the British Royal Navy to fight for King and

country, and served until 1946, liberating POWs. He served at Portsmouth,

England, Gibraltar, Australia and on the first ship to liberate Hong Kong.

A member

of the Royal Canadian Legion, St. John's Branch 1 since 1949, Bill is the main

reason the branch exists. He helped build the legion and nail the nails. Bill

served as the branch's Sergeant-at-Arms for 51 years and was still a trustee of

the branch at age 98, two years ago.

Bill is

deeply respected by his legion comrades, who describe him as a father figure. He

doesn't waste words, but willingly shares his knowledge, helps out or offers

friendly advice. One member said: “He can educate a person.”

He and

his wife Brenda, a war bride, were married 70 years until her passing in 2014.

They have three children and three grandchildren. Presently, he resides at the

Caribou Memorial Veterans Pavilion, where he still enjoys his life-long passion

of reading.

I ask

Members to join me in honouring Bill Saunders and his service to his country and

his community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Speaker, yesterday marked the

beginning of Safety and Health Week – a continent-wide event spanning Canada,

the United States and Mexico – which focuses on the importance of preventing

injury and illness in the workplace, at home and in the community.

Last

week, I had the privilege of attending an event to recognize the National Day of

Mourning. The event had a powerful message, reminding us safety is everyone's

responsibility.

In the

last five years, 140 workers in this province lost their lives as a result of

workplace incidents and occupational disease. This is unacceptable.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a right to safe, incident-free work

environments, and this is why Digital Government and Service NL continues to

engage with employers, workers and labour groups to enhance safety practices.

Working

together, we enforce strong safety standards, increase safety awareness and

ensure adequate safety training in workplaces throughout our province.

Speaker,

we all have a responsibility to promote health and safety. Renewing our

commitment to safe and healthy work environments help ensure that we can all

return home to our friends and family at the end of the day.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I'd like to take this

opportunity on behalf of the entire Official Opposition caucus to recognize and

reflect upon the importance of Safety and Health Week.

I echo

the minister's statement that is unacceptable that 140 workers in this province

have lost their lives in workplace incidents or occupational disease in the past

five years.

While we

remember those who have been injured or killed on the job, I'd also like to

thank and recognize the many health and safety officials who strive every day to

make workplaces as safe as possible. I also encourage these professionals to

keep pushing for safety standards and awareness.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. All employees deserve to

work in safe and healthy environments, yet 140 workers lost their lives in this

province in the last five years. We take this opportunity to call on government

to hold neglectful companies and supporting management responsible for workplace

injuries to stricter fines and jail sentences for those who endanger the lives

of their employees.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Any further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, I've spent the last

few weeks meeting with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout the province.

I've heard again and again, people are worried about the soaring cost of living

and crumbling health care. They believe action is long overdue, but they do not

believe the Premier is listening. They're not sure he really gets how much they

are suffering.

Premier,

long-term plans are one thing, but what level of suffering in our population

will it take before you act to relieve the pressure people are feeling today?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you for the question.

I had an

opportunity myself over the last two weeks to travel around the province. In

fact, the minister and I were down in Harbour Breton just recently talking about

health care and the needs of health care in that region, Mr. Speaker.

Opposite

from what the Member opposite has said, I have heard that they actually think we

are listening. They understand the challenges that they face, but they

appreciate that we have a vision going forward.

We do

need acute solutions and we've been working with the NLMA. We've been working

with the College of Family Physicians of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact,

today, I had a healthy meeting with them to introduce the new ADM responsible

for physician recruitment and retention across the province, Dr. Megan Hayes, a

rural family physician who understands the challenges that those physicians face

and we're moving forward, Mr. Speaker.

understand the anxieties that are out there and we're planning to address them,

short, medium and long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

We're

hearing from all corners of this province, including the minister's district,

that there is a need for health care, there's a crisis in health care and very

little is being done to address the needs in health care right now.

listened to numerous examples of how people are struggling with the high cost of

living and not getting access to the health care they need. Many are losing hope

and wondering if they're going to have to pack up and leave. Smoke-and-mirrors

photo ops are not going to distract people from the hardships they are facing.

I ask

the Premier: When will you park the photo op and take meaningful action to help

the people of this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

was more than a photo op we had. It was fulsome conversations. We met with

front-line workers and nurses who are running the health care facility in the

Connaigre Peninsula. We met with the council of mayors in the Connaigre

Peninsula. We understand the anxieties that they are facing. They want to work

with us, with the NLMA, with the physician recruitment and retention officer,

the new ADM, to ensure that they are getting the health care requirements that

they need.

On top

of that, I think it is worthwhile remembering what we're already doing. We are

acting on some of the Health Accord documents, Mr. Speaker, like providing new

collaborative care clinics; expanding recruitment incentives, like providing

$100,000 to new graduates and a guaranteed salary to new graduates; increasing

the number of graduating health care professionals, LPNs, PCAs, nurses and it

goes on, Mr. Speaker.

Hopefully, we can address that in the next question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Premier,

you and your minister have had seven years of conversation: It's time to have

some actions here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

I correct that: two and seven to make some actions happen.

Speaker,

last week we heard the heartbreaking story of a little boy who did not receive

the health care he needed in Central Newfoundland. The little boy had a ruptured

appendix and it took a flight to Alberta's Children's Hospital to receive

potentially life-saving health care.

I ask

the Premier: What do you say to this 10-month-old little boy and his family?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Obviously, when individuals don't receive the health care that they expect and

are entitled to, it's always a cause of concern. One of the things over the last

seven years that we have brought in was the

Patient Safety Act . There is a quality

assurance process, which the regional health authorities will follow and are

following in this instance after the child returned home.

As far

as the issue of professional practice is concerned, however, medicine, nursing

and the like are self-regulating professions. I would encourage anyone who feels

that they have not received the standard of care that they are entitled to from

a licensed health professional to submit their claim through that process. It's

free and confidential and no cost to themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

That is

alarming when you hear the minister talking about health care that people

expect. This is not about what people expect; this is what people need to keep

them alive, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

The mother of this little boy

said, and I quote her: “Newfoundland is my home province and I feel so let down.

'Come home year' advertisements certainly strike a different cord now. I don't

know how I'll ever be willing to travel with my boys there again, for the fear

of them” not being able to access needed health care if anything were to happen.

I ask

the Premier: How can families planning a trip home this summer have confidence

in our health care system should they need to avail of it in an emergency?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we are sympathetic to the plight of the family that the Member

opposite is describing and we wish a speedy recovery to the child that is in

question.

We are

continuing to recreate the health care system to meet the demands, not only of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today but indeed the future. Mr. Speaker, we

recognize change comes with acute challenges. That is why we have laid out, I

believe ahead of other provinces, the Health Accord NL. People are looking to us

now as a roadmap of how to reimagine and reinvent their health care system.

All it

takes is a quick Google search of CBC or any of the news outlets across the

country to look and see how many family physicians are absent across the

country; there are a million in BC; there is 25 per cent in Quebec.

understand that there are challenges here but we need to look at the context of

the market of family physicians and sought after health care professionals

around the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

people availing of health care and those diligent employees in our health care

system need action now; not long-term plans, not down the road, they need action

now to deliver a health care service the way we need them in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Every aspect of our health

care system is feeling the effects of staff shortages. The head of cardiac

surgery for Eastern Health is set to leave the position at the end of May,

leaving just three surgeons to perform cardiac surgery at the Health Sciences

Centre. That means a heavy workload for these dedicated professionals and a

lengthy wait-list for heart surgeries in this province with one of the highest

rates of cardiac disease.

I ask

the Premier: How is this a sustainable situation?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

We have

anticipated some of these staffing challenges. Eastern Health has a

collaborative MOU with the Ottawa Heart Institute. They are sending a rotation

of a couple of senior surgeons to assist; we have stabilized the perfusionist

issue, five out of six positions are now filled, with the sixth being actively

recruited for. I will be meeting with Eastern Health in the course of coming

days to discuss a wait-list management plan for those top priority patients and

we will have answers for those individuals.

This is

not something that we are sitting idly by, Mr. Speaker. It is being actively

managed by the department, by Eastern Health, and with success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

We've

waited seven years to have a plan to look at wait-lists. They didn't just happen

overnight. They've been here for a number of years and particularly since this

administration has taken over. It's time for action right now.

Speaker,

people are not getting access to the care they need in our health care system.

They are finding themselves better off getting on a plane and going to another

province. Our health care system is no longer crumbling; it has collapsed.

I ask

the Premier: After seven long years of responsibility for the state of the

health care system, why do you still have confidence in your Minister of Health?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order, please!

I can

stand up here all day.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Let me take an opportunity to

tell you what we are doing. We're doing new collaborative clinics throughout the

province, Mr. Speaker. We're expanding the recruitment initiatives, Mr. Speaker,

by new grads, offering them $100,000 as an incentive. We're increasing the

number of graduates in other health care professionals, like LPNs, nurses,

advance-care paramedics. We're attracting other qualified health care

professionals from around the world with an investment and attraction program

through the nurses' college, Mr. Speaker.

We're

increasing investments in physician services. We're making it easier to access

mental health services using 811 and online and virtual and it goes on, Mr.

Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The Premier's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Speaker. I

appreciate that.

You

know, it's funny, we can hear Muskrat Falls from the Premier over here all day

long, but when it comes to taking responsibility of his own government, the

accountability is nowhere to be seen. Amazing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS:

Speaker, on the last day this

House sat before Easter Break, I asked about a man, Preston Pardy, from Central

Newfoundland, who, at that point, had spent nine days waiting on a stretcher in

a hallway in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Since

that time, he spent two weeks in the Health Sciences Centre – 44 years old –

waiting for cardiac surgery, which was cancelled multiple times due to staff

shortages. Yesterday, we learned he is being sent to the Ottawa Heart Institute

to finally get the surgery he desperately needs in another province.

I ask

the Premier: What do you say to this man and his family, or to the many more

like him who can't get the surgery when they need it right here in our own

province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

obviously can't speak to individual cases. We have and continue to use our

relationship with the Ottawa Heart Institute to send out of province those

people whose level of care exceeds the Health Sciences Centre's capacity to

deliver. We have always done that. We need to do that. We are a small province.

We have

stabilized the perfusionist issue. We have five out of six positions filled. We

have a collaborative relationship to bring in cardiac surgeons and we have

meetings set-up to plan an approach to that backlog of critical cases.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not unique to this province. There are 35,000 people in Regina

awaiting surgery.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you.

The

minister has pointed out something: You can't speak to individual cases. That's

the problem with government. You're not looking into individual cases and

talking to these individual people, because then you'd know exactly where their

heads are and what they need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS:

Speaker, Preston's experience

with the health care system was not acceptable. It should not take Ontario's

health care system to give this gentleman the chance at a speedy recovery, or

Alberta's to save a 10-month-old boy needing urgent care. Premier, if you listen

to the people of our province, you would hear these similar stories as they're

happening all around us.

I ask

the Premier: What level of failure do you consider to be too much for a Health

Minister, if this isn't it?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

challenges around health care and recruitment are not unique to this province.

We've seen them coming. We have short-, medium- and long-term plans. The medium

term involves $30 million we announced last October to manage some of the

recruitment challenges and to bring them on to a provincial perspective.

Central Health, there are 14 physicians interested in going there in the short

term. There are relief staff coming in the short term. We have 32 of 35 seats

for the residency program in family medicine filled on the first iteration.

According to CIHI, we have the highest retention of graduates of Memorial

medical school compared with any other province except Quebec. We'll get first

next year, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

tell you what is unique about health care in this province: The fact that people

have to pay to see a primary care provider.

In the

last budget, there was over $2 billion in savings in the salaried physician

budget. That could have paid for 57,000 visits to nurse practitioners in this

province. Instead, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are forced to pay out of

their pocket and they continue to pay out of their pocket. It's just not good

enough.

Mr.

Speaker, on this past Thursday, I had a call from a senior in the minister's

district who talked to me about the challenges he was having paying his fuel

bill. He normally can only afford to order $250 at a time. His oil company has

talked to him now and told him they will not deliver unless he orders $450

minimum. He doesn't have the money.

I ask

the minister: Minister, what hope can you offer this senior in your district,

and other seniors in this province, to offset some of these high costs? Will you

implement a home heat rebate program?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Indeed,

these are challenging times. We're coming out of a pandemic. People have had a

very difficult two years and now we have the global crisis in the Ukraine and

the offing of that crisis is causing problems here at home, across the country

and indeed around the world. We have a great deal of empathy. I know people are

worried. That's why we had $142 million worth of cost-of-living supports in the

budget that we're discussing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I asked about

whether or not the government would implement a home heat program. I guess

there's still no talk about that, however, there is hope.

Friday, the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills said, and I

quote: The intention of the federal government is to increase the price of fuels

that is how, just like a syntax, you know that this is how you dissuade people

from burning fuel and from creating carbon emissions.

I wonder

does the Minister of Finance agree with that statement, and if so, will she roll

back the 2.5-cent carbon tax increase and remove it by reducing her gasoline

tax?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much.

The

Member opposite would fully understand that the provincial gas tax, valued at

about $141 million, and as I've just indicated to this House, we are returning

$142 million to the people of the province. I think this is one of the first

times in history of Newfoundland and Labrador that I can remember a government

putting money back into people's pockets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

I think it's very important.

People are very, very concerned –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

S. COADY:

I'm sorry, Speaker, the

Members opposite are chirping at me and it's very hard to answer.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

It's very hard to answer a

question when you're being interrupted.

But I

will say this, Speaker, regarding the issue of the carbon tax; it is a federal

government policy. They are the ones who have said to address climate change

they are putting in place a carbon tax. That is the way the country is going,

Mr. Speaker. It's not up to the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I believe the

minister still has the opportunity to control her own gas tax, at least we hope

so. When she introduced the carbon tax, she called it a

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution. Apparently, it's a made-in-Ottawa

solution.

The

Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills gave us some hope because

he was quoted as saying everything is on the table, when he was asked about what

could be done to lower the cost of fuels.

I ask

the Finance Minister: Can you detail to us what exactly is on the table that her

colleague is talking about?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

say to the Member opposite that he continues to ask about what we're doing to

help people with the cost of living and I've detailed: we've cut our fees on

motor vehicle registration; we've eliminated the tax on car insurance –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

S. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I keep getting

interrupted so it's a little bit hard to answer the questions fluidly.

But I

will say to the Member opposite that we have given back, as I said, $142

million. The provincial gas tax collects $141 million. So it is completely

offset by what we're doing to assist the cost of living.

Is there

more? We're going to continue to look at what we can do. But we also have to

invest in health care, in education and in safety.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

I would suggest to the

minister that in addition to her gasoline tax, she also collects sales tax of 10

per cent on every litre of gas that she hasn't factored into that equation. It's

hidden in another column in her budget estimate and it's a significant amount of

money.

She has

a $9-billion budget. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are severely

impacted, right now, by the cost of home heating fuel and the price at the

pumps. They have asked for help. This government continues to refuse to help

them.

I ask

the minister: Will you ask your officials to go back, amend your budget and a

find way to offer rebates to the people of the province who really need it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

It is indeed unfortunate that

the moment I rise to speak to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I have to allocate a

billion dollars to address the cost of borrowing. Imagine what we could do with

that money; imagine if I didn't have to allocate $500 million to help offset the

cost of Muskrat Falls, Speaker; imagine if I could use that money to help pay

for health care and education and even lower again the cost of living that

everyone in this province is feeling the effects from.

I can

say to the Member opposite that we're very cognizant of the cost of living and

the impact. We have given back the entire amount of the provincial sales tax,

just as Alberta's done; it's equivalent, Speaker. I don't know if the Member

opposite is aware of that; the amount of money that Alberta is giving back on a

per capita basis is the same as Newfoundland and Labrador is giving back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

excuse list keeps growing. I read in The

Telegram last week it was 45, I guess we keep going.

Speaker,

increase taxes but reduce access to services like health care. What a mess on

this government's watch.

Last

week, we learned the new long-term care homes in Central Newfoundland are

delayed once again by serious life-safety issues. This is a month after

facilities were officially opened by the Premier and the minister.

I ask

the minister: When did he become aware of these latest delays? Before or after

the ribbon was cut?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me

begin by saying, I know the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Premier as

having photo ops. Well, I believe that same Member has his campaign photo and

logo on his vehicle, so I'd just like to make that clear in terms of photo ops.

addressing the long-term care facilities and the question that the Member is

asking – because it's an important one and it's important to the seniors and

families in Central Newfoundland and Labrador – I'm frustrated. There are three

proponents: the Department of TI, we have Central Health and we have the

contractor.

We are

frustrated. It's unfortunate that we're here now delayed with two other issues.

But those two issues are being worked on to finally come to a resolve so we can

get seniors in those homes and the service that is badly needed in Central

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Leader of the Opposition would probably have those decals painted over, only he

can't afford to do it because he's trying to keep it full of gas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister again: When exactly did he learn about the issues with the water

systems on uneven floors in the new long-term care homes in Central

Newfoundland?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker.

Speaker,

one can assume the Premier and the minister did this a month ago when they

smiled for the cameras, or they should have known. Either way, there were

thousands of deficiencies the government was aware of a year ago and still not

fully rectified.

Will the

minister finally stand in his place and apologize to the seniors in Central

Newfoundland who are waiting for these beds? Ultimately, they're the ones who

are losing out.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Well,

the seniors in Central Newfoundland don't think they're getting it done. They

are the ones who we are listening to right now and they're suffering. So the

minister can say that all he wants, but the people don't believe it.

Speaker,

the minister's deflecting with smoke and mirrors does nothing to alleviate the

critical bed shortage in Central Newfoundland, where acute care beds are

occupied with seniors waiting for these facilities to open. His department has

done an abysmal job on managing this project and residents are now paying the

price.

Can the

minister table an updated report of the other 4,000 deficiencies his department

oversaw?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker, let me make it

clear as well, there is more than just the Department of Transportation that's

involved in the process here. We have a contractor and I have been frustrated

with the contractor as well, no doubt about it. I've been frustrated with the

process as well.

I even

had conversations with the staff that we need to have conversation even when

this project is over to find if we can do something that can make it more

efficient. So I'm willing to do that. But we are happy that we're investing and,

as I said before, we have 120 long-term care beds that we'll be happy to move

those seniors in the homes, medical staff to provide the services and there will

be smiles on everyone's faces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

three-year Autism Action Plan was scheduled to be fully implemented by March of

this year, 2022. However, many families on the Burin Peninsula are still

struggling to access supports for persons with autism.

I ask

the minister: When will the three-year Autism Action Plan be fully implemented?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

Autism Action Plan is a key development in moving people away from

diagnosis-based support to what they need to do to support their activities of

daily living. The Action Plan was rolling out on time, and then COVID arrived,

Mr. Speaker.

Eighty-five per cent of the time of those policy people involved in the

implementation of the Action Plan was taken up with COVID. That now,

fortunately, is on the wane, thanks to the efforts of Public Health. As that

happens, we will be in a position to reboot the process and I actually had a

briefing on that about 10 days ago.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Speaker, we started off with

a five-year autism plan and that didn't work. Now we have a three-year autism

plan that's not being implemented. I say to the minister, focus on something and

get something done with it, please.

The

people of Arnold's Cove are very concerned that the only doctor in the community

will soon retire, leaving residents without any access. The town has even

offered to construct a facility to attract a new doctor or a nurse practitioner.

I ask

the minister: Will he support this plan and give his personal attention to

recruiting a new primary care provider for the area?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'm

aware of the retirement of that individual who has served the community for a

long time. I do know that Eastern Health has actually been in discussion with

the mayor of Arnold's Cove, among other places in that area, to discuss what

they, as communities, feel their needs are and he's working towards it.

I, along

with the Premier, this morning, met with the College of Family Practitioners and

with our new ADM who will be taking up post in the not-too-distant future, whose

responsibility is recruitment and retention. The college are committed to

working with government to support these initiatives. Thirty-two out of 35 of

our family medicine residencies for this year are filled and our retention rate

is second only to Quebec. We want to make it the best and we will do in the near

future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS :

Thank you, Speaker.

In a

news

article published today, the briefing notes of the Minister Responsible for

Women and Gender Equality state – I quote – proactive pay equity legislation can

be costly, operationally complex, involve significant legal battles and result

in only minor and unmeaningful adjustments for a limited number of women.

Really?

I ask

the minister: Does she stand by this briefing note?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member, of course, for raising this important topic. As we all know, it

is important and doesn't get enough attention – all matters pertaining to women.

Again,

the work is ongoing, of course. We know back as far as the '80s, Mr. Speaker,

the discussion has been ongoing about legislation with regard to pay equity, but

we also can't get it confused with the gender wage gap, as we know. I'll look no

further than the Province of Ontario where they have both the public and private

sector pay equity legislation, but they have one of the largest gender wage gaps

in the country.

But we

are doing concrete things here to get women in the workforce and to support

women and gender-diverse people. One comes to mind, of course, is the $15-a-day

daycare, which was implemented in 2022 and we're even looking to bring $10-a-day

daycare for January 2023, which is going to significantly help and knock down

these concrete barriers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Only minor and unmeaningful

adjustments for a limited number of women. Really?

Speaker,

this minister says that her government is taking action against gender

inequality by introducing a $10-a-day child care.

First, I

would like to ask the minister: Is she implying that child care is solely the

responsibility of the woman? Why else would she be engaging in such

stereotypical, sexist rhetoric?

Secondly, in this province, early childhood educators are 97 per cent women and

making medium income of less than $30,000 a year. So how does the minister

propose to address the issue of pay inequity in the fields dominated by women

and gender-diverse individuals – really?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, again, Mr.

Speaker.

Again, I

thank the hon. Member. It's good to see she's fired up finally about issues

pertaining to women and gender-diverse people here in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Not only

are we, of course talking about – there are also employment plans. My office is

involved with negotiating projects for women's employment plans. We can't forget

the GPA+ lens, which was implemented by this government in 2021 to put a

mandatory lens on all policies and budgets produced, of course, by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to help mitigate the negative impacts on

gender.

Work is

ongoing. We know this problem didn't happen overnight and it's certainly not

going to be solved overnight. Again, it goes back as far as the '80s.

certainly welcome the Member to come over to my department any time and also to

show up actually at the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity. We can certainly

use your voice there at that table, which we're planning our third meeting.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

federal Liberal government managed to see the importance of anti-replacement

worker legislation for federally regulated industries in the supply and

confidence deal with the federal NDP.

I ask

the minister: Now will this government follow the lead of their federal

counterparts and table anti-replacement worker legislation that is much needed

in this province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member for the question.

As the

hon. Member knows – he's asked this question on occasion before – I fully

understand his questioning. As we've always said, we look at opportunities to

look at the legislation. You don't have to look any further than the

Highway Traffic Act and other things we've done that changed over

time.

things evolve, we make those changes. Anything with respect to legislation, we

always look for the best available processes and we're going to continue to do

that. I thank the hon. Member for bringing it to the forefront again here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party. A quick question, no

preamble, please.

J. DINN:

That's going to be a

challenge, Speaker.

The

leaders, Speaker, of all three political parties in PEI have signed a letter

asking the federal government to work with the province to introduce a

province-wide basic income guarantee.

I ask

the Premier: When will his government establish the all-party Committee on basic

income as called for in our private Member's resolution that was passed

unanimously not once, but twice in this House of Assembly.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Speaker, thank you for the

opportunity to respond.

Certainly, the whole concept of basic income has gotten a lot of attention in

this province, in PEI and across the country. We're looking at the research that

other provinces have done, including BC. We're developing some policy options

for government.

As far

as the Committee goes, I will leave that to the House Leaders to determine when

and if that Committee is put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Time for Question Period has

expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act , I am tabling 12 orders-in-council relating to funding

for pre-commitments for fiscal years '22-'23 to '33-'34.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

I have

one.

required under

section 31 of the Auditor

General Act , 2021 , I hereby table

the 2022 Atlantic Provinces' Joint

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

I give

notice to move the following private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS

the cost-of-living crisis that is making life unbearable for countless

Newfoundland and Labrador individuals and families is worsening by the day, to

such a degree that it requires urgent relief measures beyond those included in

the government's 2022 budget plan; and

WHEREAS

during this Mental Health Week we must recognize that the cost-of-living crisis

is contributing to stress, anxiety and mental health issues for many people, and

action must be taken with greater urgency to ensure people get financial relief

as well as improved access to the long-term mental health care they need without

enduring excessive wait times;

BE IT

RESOLVED that this House urge the government to provide immediate relief

measures beyond those included in the government's 2022 budget plan, including

financial relief along with measures to improve access to mental health care.

This is

seconded by the Member for Topsail - Paradise and it will be debated on May 4,

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker,

I give notice that on tomorrow I will move, in accordance with Standing Order

11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2022.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that on tomorrow I will move the following motion: That notwithstanding Standing

Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, but

shall continue to sit to conduct Government Business, and if not adjourned the

Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker,

I give notice that on tomorrow I will move, in accordance with Standing Order

11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 on Thursday, May 5, 2022.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

The motion read in by my

colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port will be the private Member's

resolution, which will be debated this coming Wednesday by the Official

Opposition.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

This is

a petition calling on the House of Assembly to urge government to reform the

justice system to better serve survivors of sexual assault. It's a petition that

I presented before in this House. This one is a petition that's signed by the

students and staff of Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown.

What the

petitioners are calling for in this is an acknowledgement that the status quo is

failing survivors of sexual assault; that we undertake a review of the K-to-12

curriculum to identify gaps in education about consent, healthy relationships

and gender-based violence; to implement alternative justice options such as

transformative/restorative justice practices and/or options rooted in Indigenous

legal traditions and practices in response to gender-based violence throughout

the province; to have the Minister of Justice ask the chief judge of the

Provincial Court to consider a practice directive which would prohibit opposing

counsel from approaching witnesses and which would prohibit counsel from yelling

at witnesses; to introduce mandatory training for provincial judges on trauma,

PTSD and consent modelled on the federal requirement; and to consult with key

community stakeholders to identify and appropriately fund new initiatives to

prevent and address all forms of gender-based violence.

Mr.

Speaker, the Me Too Movement has laid bare the gross inequalities and obstacles

facing survivors of sexual assault who seek justice. In what other crime that's

committed against you are you asked if you said no or if you gave consent? Do

you get it if you're robbed? Are you asked: Well, did you try to stop them or

did you say no? But that is the case that survivors of sexual assault are

subjected to.

The

people who put forward this petition have serious concerns about how the justice

system handles criminal offences related to sexual violence and the evidence

based on statistics about the reporting of sexual assault in relation to other

crimes. These concerns also emerged from the reported experiences of survivors.

The fact

is what the authors of this petition are looking for is a system that treats the

survivors of sexual assault – not the victims but the survivors; the people who

have gone through this – with dignity and that provides justice for them and for

all.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

These

are the reasons for this petition. The background of this petition is as

follows:

Roads in

our province are in various states of disrepair. Many rural communities are

concerned that the deplorable road conditions will keep visitors and family away

from Come Home Year celebrations. We are inviting the world to come to our

province this summer, yet many rural roads are unfit for travel and many

vehicles are damaged by huge potholes, unrepaired washouts and uneven shoulders.

This is a real deterrent to tourists and family members from out of province who

wish to join our celebrations this summer.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the Provincial Roads program

budget to address the need for repairs to many rural roadways in our province.

I met

with the town council of Chance Cove and they are well renowned now, obviously,

since COVID came in. They are a great success story with their hiking trail and

right now, the trail is in better shape than the road to get there.

noticed on the way in, coming back to reassemble here at the House, half the

sign on Route 1 is gone. It's not even there; not even a piece of board. It's

not like it's tore up or the paints moved or anything like that. It's gone.

Like I

said, it seems to be that Come Home Year celebrations are left to the towns in

the rural side, but there is going to be a lot to do. Apparently, in St. John's

and urban centres, they got a lot of roadwork in the last few years since I've

been here, I can tell you that.

In the

meantime, there has been such neglect for so many years that it just makes no

sense that we would even want to invite anybody. It is like inviting somebody

into your house and telling them to lift your leg if you can get in. But people

don't keep their house like that. They keep their house in better repair;

therefore, we should keep our house in better repair, especially outside the

Overpass.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

petition is to increase the supports for Labrador West seniors. The reasons for

the petition:

The need

for senior accessible housing and home care service in Labrador is steadily

increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility of

needing to leave their homes in order to afford to live or receive adequate

care. Additional housing options, including assisted-living facilities, like

those found throughout the rest of the province for seniors, have become a

requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is not currently being met.

WHEREAS

the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes

where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth.

WHEREAS

the means of increasing the numbers of senior residents in Labrador West to

happily age in place are not currently available to the region.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador

West to age in place by providing affordable housing options for seniors and

assisted living care facilities for those who require care.

It's no

surprise. It's been in the media. I have talked about it dozens and dozens of

times in this House, seniors in Labrador West don't have the same access to care

and housing or anything like that, that any other region in this province

currently has available to them. We have a very limited number of long-term care

beds and long-term care is usually for those who are in advanced state of aging

that require (inaudible).

There

are seniors that just need home care that can't get it. There are seniors that

need an assisted-living facility that are still able to participate in the

community and just want to live in comfort with the access to everything that

everyone else has.

Right

now seniors are just asking to have the same access to care that every other

region of this province has access to. There is no assisted-living facility.

There is very limited home care offered. There are only 12 beds in long-term

care and there is a wait-list for that.

Seniors

in Labrador West are just asking for the same thing that everyone else in this

province enjoy. And that's all they ask. This is something that reports were

written in the early 2000s about, that Labrador West will have a boom of a group

of aged individuals very rapidly. Unfortunately, it was ignored, the advice was

ignored from the people that did the report and now we're at a point where we

have a significant amount of seniors looking for access to home care,

assisted-living facilities and just those basic needs that are not available

right now.

It has

come to a point now where they are being told, unfortunately, you have to leave

the community. And there are only two options: either go to Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, which they themselves actually have a bit of a wait-list and stuff for home

care and for assisted living as well, or Corner Brook. Most of the residents of

my community have little to no family in Corner Brook; they may have lived there

years ago –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is expired.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These

are the reasons for this petition:

With a

population in excess of 6,000 people in the Bonavista area, there is a severe

shortage of child care options for young families, young working families, which

is leading to absences from employment and deep frustration that is being

expressed far and wide.

petition the hon. House of Assembly and call upon the House of Assembly to urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the regulated

child care facilities in the Bonavista area by being more respondent to the

proposals already submitted and creative with underutilized spaces that already

exist within the current K-to-12 school system.

Child

care is a big issue in the District of Bonavista and it may be in other areas,

but we're talking about over 6,000 people that would be in that immediate area.

Many young families that work in health care in Bonavista, which, again, we deem

to be in a crisis, which the Premier would say that the system is broken. Many

of these young workers with young family members cannot find child care.

What

happens is that they must stay home to look after their child in the absence of

being able to provide a provider in the Bonavista area. And it is an issue. I've

checked on it to know that, within the health care delivery system, this is an

intricate part of being able to maintain the health care system in the Bonavista

area. We hear of people in the health care system planning on leaving because of

the lack of child care.

We have

two proposals currently in to the department. Either one of these two proposals

are quite viable. What we need is an emphasis on making sure that one or both

materialize in order to provide the much-needed child care within the Bonavista

area.

I would

think the petition was started and, within two days, we had close to 60

signatures, which would indicate that it is an issue within the area. So what

we'd ask is for government to look at it. If they need any assistance from the

Bonavista area, or the MHA that would be in that area, as far as connectivity,

then by all means let's start the conversation and let's make it happen.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I take this

opportunity to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to move the adjournment of

the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.

I wish

to make the following motion:

THAT

because the cost-of-living crisis that is making life unbearable for countless

Newfoundland and Labradorian individuals and families is worsening a rapid pace;

and

Because

the relief measures that government has brought forward are not adequate to

address the people's increasing need for relief; and

Because

there's no signal that government intends to bring forward additional relief

measures, beyond those already announced; and

Because

Members of the House have brought forward relief options that are not in the

budget and that should be debated immediately to determine the merits of

implementing them immediately, and

Because

action is needed now and no more time can be lost;

I move

that the business of the House be adjourned to hold an emergency debate on

urgent relief measures that will more adequately address the cost-of-living

crisis that is worsening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This

motion is seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

SPEAKER:

Are there any quick comments

on this before we take it under review?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

SPEAKER:

No, I have to review it

first. We'll review it to see if it's in order and everything.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to say, for the record, I certainly commend the hon. Member and the

Official Opposition for bringing this forward. There's no doubt that the

measures that were taken by government in the budget, while there's no doubt

that it does address a portion of the population, the bottom line is that the

average working person is feeling the brunt of the soaring gas prices, heating

prices and so on.

I'm

hearing from people on a regular basis. I had somebody say to me yesterday: I

had to take part-time job to pay for the gas to go into my car in order to go to

my full-time job. I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it really sort of

speaks to the fact of – I know it does sound funny, I suppose, to some degree,

but it does speak to where we are. It is a crisis; therefore, I would certainly

support the Official Opposition on this motion.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

This

House will recess to review the special measures order under Standing Order 36.

Recess

SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

Order,

please!

Before I

make my ruling, I would like to recognize that the Member for Conception Bay

South has notified me of his motion under Standing Order 36 as required.

In this

matter, I will be guided by the ruling of Speaker Hodder in the House of

Assembly on April 22, 2004, where he based his analysis on the urgency of the

debate by Members of the House, rather than the urgency of the matter. This is

confirmed in various parliamentary texts, including

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , 4th edition, page 86,

where it says: urgency has consistently been interpreted as urgency of debate,

not urgency of the subject matter.

While I

recognize that this issue is ongoing and is affecting many people in our

province, Members have other parliamentary opportunity to ask questions of

government regarding this matter. These include the ongoing debate of the

budget, or during this week's private Member's motion, which has been already

given notice earlier today.

The

matter of urgency of debate in the House today, which would supersede all

business of the House, has not been established. Therefore, I'm ruling that this

matter not proceed under Standing Order 36.

Order

please!

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Keeping

my eye on the time now, but it looks like my time is already up. Okay, there it

is. Short and sweet.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Always

good to speak on behalf of the residents of the District of Bonavista. I do want

to talk about the budget, which I will, but I just want to deviate and just have

a few comments that would be outside that before I would get into the details.

On April

12, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development had welcomed me

back to the House after a period of illness. He said: Maybe at some point and

time when you speak, you can address about your experiences. I thought that

would probably be a good place to start, just to share my experiences and, I

think, experiences with the health care system.

Diagnosed with cancer in December, which was a bit of a bombshell for a lot of

people to handle, but I waited to see until I knew that surgery would have to be

forthcoming. That occurred in early March.

To the

question that was posed by my hon. minister on the other side, I would think

that the services that were received within the Health Sciences complex and in

particular Dr. Michael Organ and his team with urology – exceptional.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. PARDY:

I would say, whether I look

at a good friend of mine that was in for a cardiac procedure from Trinity Bay

North that went in with the physician who is leaving the Health Sciences

complex, Dr. Daniel Lodge; he raved about the treatment he had on his cardiac

care with Dr. Lodge. My next-door neighbour had a cardiac procedure and raved

about the professionalism and the skill set of those that worked on him in the

health care system.

Nobody

ever questions the professionalism and the skill set of those working within the

health care system in our province. But we do have a broken system in the sense

that sometimes, like my friend in Trinity Bay North, he was over a year waiting

to get access to cardiac surgery. I know it's prioritization, but he was pretty

well housebound; cautious as to what he did. His lifestyle had come to a stop

and he had to wait.

So while

the health care was fantastic and phenomenal, the amount of time in accessing –

and we know in health care it is accessing the family physician. There are many

in the District of Bonavista that don't have access to a family physician and

they struggle and the continuity of care has got to be impacted with them.

I want

to give a shout out to an information specialist at the Legislative Library, a

public servant by the name of Andrea Hyde. If you can recall, last year, I

talked about a young girl from Bonavista, 14 years old – I referred to her as

Janey Phillips – who was heading down to Cable John gulch in Spillars Cove when

she bent over to tie-up her shoelace and she ended up about 110 feet over a

jagged cliff on the beach below in the gulch where there was all kinds of large

boulders, but she never had a scratch.

I know

that when I heard it from Rick Street in Spillars Cove, I wondered as to whether

it was true. I heard many in the family say, yes, it was, they heard mom talk

about it. But thanks to Andrea Hyde, we found the newspaper

article from

The Evening Telegram on July 11, 1936,

with a picture of Janey Phillips, which was deemed Lizzie Phillips at the time,

and what had happened.

So I

just wanted to give a shout out to her; that is great, it validates that story.

If ever you're down in the Bonavista area and you visit the community of

Spillars Cove by the side of Bonavista, a short distance, check out Cable John

gulch and just look at that magnificent – we'll say – piece of geography that's

there and have a look at the cliff that she went over and you too would be

amazed.

recently had two budget conversations in the District of Bonavista. At 3 on

Saturday afternoon, we hosted a session at the Lions Club in Bonavista, which

was well attended. We had another one in the Lethbridge area at 7 that night,

which was well attended. And we listened. We listened to what the people had

stated and any questions they had that we can answer, we certainly did.

We just

requested an emergency debate on the cost of living. I would say to you, based

on those two sessions, we heard from lots of people stating that they are in a

tough position in our district. We are one of 40. I would say many districts

would be the same, if not all.

struggle with the cost of living and we know that we have inflationary pressures

that would be on us, but coupled to that would be the astronomical cost of fuel.

And one thing that sometimes we as decision-makers forget, if we have complex

medical needs in Bonavista – complex medical needs – your first stop will be

Clarenville, a three-hour journey up and back. If they don't handle it in

Clarenville, it is then to the Health Sciences complex in St. John's. And this

is the life and times of those people who have to access health care in rural,

remote areas if they have complex needs. I would say any travel to and from St.

John's now for a variety of reasons for those people, especially on the tip of

the peninsula, is very challenging for them.

One

gentleman stated his wife was a cancer patient. He spent over $500 going in for

radiation treatment, having to stay in St. John's in a hotel and knowing where

she had radiation he couldn't be with her and they had to be in separate rooms.

But $500-plus for him was what he had spent on accessing health care for his

wife.

These

are rural Newfoundland, real-life situations that as we amalgamate health care,

as we amalgamate schools, as we find that food outlets may be more expensive

than others that would be in larger populations, these people have to travel. At

this point in time, it is very, very costly.

My wife

who is very apolitical, in fact, she doesn't say a whole lot about politics, and

chances are she's not listening right now. Chances are nobody would tell her

that I stated her name, but I came home one time and she said – and called me by

name – I'm sick and tired of hearing about Muskrat Falls. Then she states: Well,

isn't that the crew who were responsible for the Upper Churchill? I said we've

got a statute of limitations, where, listen, the past is the past, what you've

got, you make the most of it and you work with it. So we blame things on Muskrat

Falls and we look at Muskrat Falls.

I would

say to you the Upper Churchill comes back to us in 2041. Some speculate that it

will be between $800 million and $1.2 billion under today's prices that would be

in our coffers when that does come back to us. That's a significant asset that

we have to look down the road. One thing the people in the District of Bonavista

discussed are these issues. I throw them out.

When I

ran in the 2019 election, I had understood that the cost of a provincial

election in Newfoundland and Labrador was $5 million. In fact, Bruce Chaulk had

told me it was $5 million, because I wanted to verify that it was – generally $5

million. If he does not know in Elections NL when the date of the election is,

the election increases by a little over a million dollars. The election cost

goes a little over $6 million when we don't have a set date.

The

election in 2021, during a pandemic, that was called, was a little over $8

million taxpayers' dollars. I would say, I would be an advocate of having fixed

date for elections because that would be a bold move to say let's have a fixed

date. Let's make sure that we only pay the least amount of taxpayers' money for

an election that we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

C. PARDY:

This particular government

who talks about Muskrat Falls, well, when they got into power in 2021, they

expanded their Cabinet. And I would say to you, there's nothing wrong with the

portfolios that you have and the issues that you would deem important. But when

we're looking at a province that would be in the financial shape that we're in,

I would say poor judgment on expanding your Cabinet in 2021, when we had people

that could have picked up portfolios. It wasn't the time to increase the

portfolio.

The

minister had mentioned some time ago when I talked about the poverty reduction

strategy, he referenced Manitoba. We said after, well, probably one of the ones

that's on the record as having the most impact in the country was the one in

Newfoundland and Labrador in 2006. The one in 2006, if you picked up that

strategy, Google it on your phone, you'll find out that everyone who drove that

plan and that successful strategy in our country were Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Every one of them, they were either public servants or they sat in

the Cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did the work.

So when

I go into the District of Bonavista, they'll say, that's not this government's

process or rule of thumb. We always farm outside of Newfoundland and Labrador,

as if we didn't have the capability within our own province. The latest one

would be the Rothschild, $5 million, said many times. The McKinsey report, $1

million. We want to look at the health scheduling system that we couldn't get a

handle on. So we farmed that out for $25-plus million.

Now, I

would say to you that those are choices that you have made in governance that

many of the residents in Newfoundland and Labrador – I know the ones in the

District of Bonavista – would question to say: Is that really necessary? We have

more than capable individuals to be able to steer whatever plan that you would

think to be necessary in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are here. We don't need

to export our taxpayers, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, their

dollars outside the province.

I stated

that they voiced their opinion on Saturday past and state that they're finding

it tough. I would think they're not appreciative of the sugar tax that would be

coming in, because that's going to be another tax regardless of where it's

destined for – if it's going to pay $1 million at Kids Eat Smart, we've always

paid Kids Eat Smart, because it's such a valuable asset and they do some great

work within the kids. In fact, if you want a bold move, I would say we feed all

the children in Newfoundland and Labrador. How about that? The only thing I

would say, those are actions that I don't think you would have many people

complaining about.

The

sugar tax pulls more money out of people's pockets. Regionalization will take

more money out of people's pockets. Regardless of the value it gives them, you

are going to instill a property tax in the most rural parts of this province

where they'll have to pay more on top of a highly inflated economy and a highly

inflated cost of travel to get from rural Newfoundland to where the services

are.

There

comes a point in time where you have to say now is not the time. When I say the

sugar tax, in my short time remaining, there is research out – and when we did

the debate on the sugar tax, we are the only ones in Newfoundland and Labrador

taxing sugar; nowhere else in the country. I think we all agree that when we do

legislative amendments, basically the other nine provinces and territories

almost have to be there by the time we adopt it and roll it out in Newfoundland

and Labrador. But we're on the cutting edge with the sugar tax.

The

University of Alberta would say it's the wrong approach. The

article is here –

if had a little more time, I would share with you what the researchers would

state. It's the wrong approach. Sugar consumption is an issue, no doubt about

it. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it's an issue. The research in the University

of Alberta would say taxing sugar drinks is not the problem because the sugary

drinks account for significantly less than 17 per cent of the sugar consumption

that we've got in our province. Keep in mind, those that are having trouble

making ends meet now, many of them are going to be asked to pay more for a sugar

tax on their drinks.

One

thing I want to mention about the 2006 Poverty Reduction Strategy is that in

that strategy they talked about the Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation. I'm not

sure who's aware of the Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation. I know as an

administrator at Clarenville Middle School did we ever utilize that foundation.

Did it ever put children who couldn't afford it in organized sport? It put them

in activities with their colleagues who could afford it. If you weighed the

Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation and you weighed that against your initiative,

which would be the Physical Activity Tax Credit, no comparison. The Canadian

Tire Jumpstart puts in about $1.5 million every year annually. I'm not sure if

government puts in anything now to the Canadian Tire Jumpstart.

We have

21 per cent of our youth live in poverty – 21 per cent. Twenty-five per cent,

who are six years of age and less, and the only thing I would say to you,

Canadian Tire Jumpstart serve them. If any of you were involved with physical

activities or in activities, many of you may be aware that that did a lot for a

lot of the children in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I would say cancel the

sugar tax, let your government who cancelled the Canadian Tire Jumpstart

reactivate that and let's do something –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. PARDY:

– that's a little more

impactful for the children in Newfoundland and Labrador than what we're doing.

I want

to state my support for Bill C-251 that's before the House of Commons now, and

that one is presented by MP Clifford Small from Coast of Bays–Central–Notre

Dame. The title of the bill, which will become law if supported by your Liberal

cousins: Conservation of Fish Stocks and Management of Pinnipeds Act. Pinnipeds

are your seals and the other predators in our oceans.

support it and I look forward to the next speaking engagement where I think I'm

going to dedicate it to the fishery, and that I look forward to.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Great

job there, Member.

First of

all, I'd like to say it's a privilege to stand up and be able to represent the

District of Ferryland. It's certainly a pleasure and I thank the people again

for electing me in and I certainly do appreciate it.

A couple

of things I'm going to touch on today. One is I got a text from a gentleman and

I didn't print the date, but it was on my phone and I went back to check it. I

didn't want to be taking my phone out while I am speaking in the House of

Assembly, so I said I would print it off and I should have checked the date.

Well, it probably could be on this, but I am not going to look for it.

When he

bought fuel, he bought 500 litres. He runs a company. At that time, it was $1.62

a litre so that was only a couple of weeks ago, I suppose, or three weeks ago.

At that time, he bought 500 litres of fuel. It cost him $1,111.61. Of that:

federal excise tax, $19.98; provincial fuel, $82.43; Newfoundland carbon tax,

$53.61; HST, $144.99. It totals up to $301, three weeks ago.

And now

it is probably twice – well, it's not twice that, but I tell you now it's an

increase. He is texting me and saying it's so hard to keep a business going.

He's got his own excavator, his own truck and he's a small business. When he

gets this charge of fuel, that's just one fill-up. If he gets this charge of

fuel, who is going to pay for his work? The person that's getting their work

done obviously got to pay for it, so his prices have to go up. That doesn't

stimulate the economy. Somehow, somewhere we have got to figure out how to stop

this, how to get it back so people – that is definitely not stimulating the

economy in this area. Definitely not.

I don't

know the answer and we've got some answers that we are throwing out there. We

are throwing out the taxes that are coming in from the sugar tax. That's one

thing that we are throwing out there. You are asking them to come up with

solutions; that's one of them. And it's not you just turn away.

So I'll

say this: I was on a council in Bay Bulls a long while ago, nine or 10 years

ago. In order to talk about something, you had to put a motion to the floor, get

it seconded and then you could debate it. I put a motion to the floor, got a

seconder, debated it and we all had our turn speaking – just like we do here. Do

you know what the problem I find in here is? That we don't listen to each other

is my problem with it. We don't listen to each other. Listen, you can make a

motion –

AN HON. MEMBER:

I agree.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Totally – I finally get

someone to agree with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

I am not saying it's all

wrong. I am not saying everything is wrong. That's not what I am saying. What I

am saying is that if you put a motion to the floor – and I did this. I'll go

back to where I started. I put a motion to the floor and I got it seconded. When

the motion was all said and done and everybody had their say, guess what I did?

I voted against the motion. First time in history they said that somebody put a

motion to the floor and voted against my own motion.

But why

did I do that? Because when I listened to other people talk about it, it made

more sense. My motion – do you know what? When I listened to everybody and what

they had to say, I decided that's not a good motion. I am going to vote against

it, and that's what I did.

It was

probably never done before, I don't know. The point I'm trying to make is, yes,

you came out with legislation and then we come over here and debate it. We sit

down and no matter what happens, it's 22 to 18. It doesn't matter if it's good

or bad, it's 22 to 18. That's the way the vote is going to be because you came

up with this great idea. But we have something to offer and you have lots to

offer too, but we don't sit down and listen to each other, listen to some good

points. Listen, you make good points as well as we do, but we're trying to help

it a bit. I just don't see it.

We all

get elected to come in – I sit here and listen to Muskrat Falls. He just spoke

about it. Every time $500 million gets thrown out, we're making a tick mark or

we're making a remark. I can't let it go. I'm sorry I cannot let it go. It just

boils me to no end. I wasn't here when it was voted on.

We were

elected to come in and change that stuff, not to come in and continue throwing

it down the road. We were elected to hopefully change that somehow. It's seven

years, I think, since the Liberal government came in. I'm not here jumping on

anybody. We're talking about that since I came here three years. The Premier

said to me that he was only here two years today. Well, I'm only here three and

I'm hearing Muskrat Falls since I got here.

you're elected, you have seven years to get that stuff ironed out and try – it's

not easy; there's no doubt about it. I'm in the same predicament you are, we

have to deal with it, but we should deal with it together. There's no together,

not in my mind anyway. Now, someone else can tell me something different, but

not in my mind.

It just

doesn't make any sense. We sit down here every single time and you know what?

You keep throwing it up; I'm not going to let it go. I'm going to be chirped;

I would expect if I did that

to you guys, you'd certainly let me know and I'd certainly apologize right away.

It's certainly something that shouldn't come up, but I think it's just something

that had to be out there. We just have to be careful of what we're saying

sometimes. I know we get heated, but you still can't let that happen.

When I

was listening to him talking, I think he was reading my notes – some of the ones

on the election, especially. We spent, like he said, $5 million on an election,

and because it was called so quick, that's $3 million extra spent. Well, $3

million can do a lot of stuff. We're looking for cataract surgeries out on the

West Coast that's a million dollars. That's something that could have been

saved.

So if we

have a date, then it's something that we should live by and honour it. That's

why we put these rules in. Now, you're going to call one whenever you like.

Strategically, it's going to be done. But if you're going to put a date there,

this is the kind of stuff that you collaborate and call it and do it the way

it's supposed to be done. You put that rule there for a reason. Now, we didn't

do it; that was done – I'm going to say I don't know what government. I'm going

to say the PC government or it could be Liberal. I'm not sure who brought that

rule in.

AN HON. MEMBER:

PC government.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

PC government. Well, why not

honour it? Let's get down and put a date and honour it and then you'll know

where you're to. You're saving money. You want to save money?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Yes, they try to, I suppose.

But it's

an idea to save money. So you're looking at saving money. If you give them a

fixed date, then we're saving money without having to do anything. Without

having to tax anybody, without having to do anything, we can save them some

money by giving a fixed date. Makes total sense to me. So I don't know why we

wouldn't adapt to that, but there will be reasons for it or how the polls are

go, or whatever it is. That's the way it goes.

I'm

going to get back to my district a little bit. There is some positive stuff

happening. I spoke to a tourist operator the other day. We had the issue coming

up with Turo. There were some questions they are asking, just about having stuff

ready and being prepared and speaking to the right people in the industry. He

called me and he said, b'y, I hope you're not – I said we're not against

tourists coming to this area, and certainly not against Come Home Year. I think

it could have been a better year maybe next year, just because – we blamed

everything on COVID, so why couldn't we just give it another year? Anyway, it's

done now, we're going to move on and it's going to be celebrated. But we need to

get people into this province.

It's

something that we really have to do our homework on some of this stuff. We just

throw stuff out there and hopefully it hits and sticks, but there was no

homework done on this. In regard to the insurance industry, again, he called me,

and again I told him we're not against people coming here. We would certainly

love to see that. That's going to stimulate the economy again, and that's what

the government should be doing. It certainly empowers what we should be trying

to do for all the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's

something that we should be paying a little more attention to, instead of just

jumping into stuff haphazardly and not doing all the homework on it.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Yes, no problem. That's what

I certainly will. But when you throw the information out there, we're looking

for answers. You haven't spoke to the insurance companies, so they're the first

ones that should be involved. If you buy a car, you've got to have insurance on

it. Then there's a secondary insurance that are offering liability. Are they

paying $2 million cash for a vehicle when they beat it up? Those are the

questions you've got to know and who's going to cover it all. There are all

kinds of questions – we'll certainly discuss it when we get to that. So that's

where it's to.

I will

deal with the ambulance issue in the district, up in Trepassey. I don't know how

much more this Trepassey area and Portugal Cove South-St. Shott's can take.

They've been hit so hard. I'm looking at the ambulance issue. So you take them

from Trepassey, bring them to Cape Broyle, and they're sitting down there,

they've got no one to man it. Now, I'm not saying that's the minister's fault,

but he's had a report on his desk for five years on ambulances and now we're

going to go to the Health Accord and institute what they're going to do, or try

to do.

It's

something that should be looked at. It's an area that's 200 kilometres away from

here. It's 2½ hours if you're going to drive. You leave here today and it's 2½

hours to drive there. I get a text every second day or third day – we're in a

red alert up here now, the ambulance is gone and we're sitting out waiting to

get into the Health Sciences or waiting to get into St. Clare's.

They're

just stopped right there. They're in a red alert. So now you've got to get an

ambulance that's got to drive either from Cape Broyle or from St. Mary's, going

to be an hour away before some – and that time is of the essence, it's crucial.

If somebody – certainly for a stroke victim a half hour or 45 minutes is as much

as people can stand in that situation, and they need to get that drug in them to

help them hopefully turn over the conditions of a stroke.

It's

just so hard to understand how we don't see this. We're all 40 elected Members,

how the people in your district – you don't see the trouble the

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2022-05-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2022-05-02
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d118f7b76591618cc413ec55fc68aeebf5a3e571

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).